Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

Book Condition:Connecting readers with great books since 1972. Used books may not include companion materials, some shelf wear, may contain highlighting/notes, may not include cd-rom or access codes. Customer service is our top priority!

Comment: Connecting readers with great books since 1972. Used books may not include companion materials, some shelf wear, may contain highlighting/notes, may not include cd-rom or access codes. Customer service is our top priority!

A study of the attitudes of the founding fathers toward slavery. This revised text examines the views of Thomas Jefferson reflected in his life and writings and those of other founders as expressed in sources such as the Constitution, the Constituional Convention and the Northwest Ordinance.

"Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress"
Is the world really falling apart? Is the ideal of progress obsolete? Cognitive scientist and public intellectual Steven Pinker urges us to step back from the gory headlines and prophecies of doom, and instead, follow the data: In seventy-five jaw-dropping graphs, Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise. Learn more

Top customer reviews

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

After reading I found another book to read, Thomas Jefferson by John Boles. I felt I had to since Finkelman came down hard on Jefferson. After reading both I am convinced that Jefferson was trapped into continuing to have slaves as he was deep in debt. After his death all but five slaves were sold as was the furnishings and the entire estate. Many times in his life he spoke in favor of stopping but to no avail. Two things stood out for me. The first was that slavery was a very important fact of life as the Founders were drafting a Constitution. Had they tried to stop it there would have been no new country created. Secondly, I was amazed to realize that slavery existed in all of the original colonies As we grew slaves were also in Illinois and Indiana. It took 20 years or more to eliminate the practice in the North.

So, how did the Founding Fathers who owned slaves personally deal with the moral dilemma of slavery? The answer goes to the heart of the man. Washington freed his slaves (at the death of his wife Martha who, no doubt while eating her soup, decided to emancipate prematurely) and gave them land, near Mt.Vernon, with the means to establish a farm. Even Franklin found himself compromised as a slave owner, but treated them as members of family. Jefferson--his star is falling as he failed to free his slaves, viewing them as property. Worse, some were his own children--left in bondage upon his death, much less freeing them in life. This book of history is as vital to history as history is to itself.

PS. When GW freed his slaves at the death of his dear wife Martha, he created a policy externality...clearly, knowing this could be risky to her health, Martha had to immediately free the slaves as George fully intended she ultimately do--with nearby land and the means to farm. This makes for an impressive example for students of economics and public policy when they learn the meaning of "externalities".

Well researched and nice use of primary sources. This is a great view of slavery among the founding fathers. It offeres a new perspective to Jefferson. Instead of the benevolent slave master, Finkelman presents Jefferson as a willing slave owner and a person who believes in (and helps create) the biological justifications for slavery.

Finkelman has assembled some valuable sources, but--like Joseph Ellis in American Sphinx: the Character of Thomas Jefferson--he is careless with the details, sometimes betraying a limited familiarity with the period. A few examples:1. He exaggerates Alexander Hamilton's anti-slavery efforts, ignoring the fact that Hamilton bought and sold household slaves in New York City.2. He refers to Martin Van Buren as "the silver fox of Kinderhook"; Van Buren was known as the Red Fox, after the color of his hair, (Perhaps he has him mixed up with the "Silver Whigs" of William Seward . . . or the country singer, Charlie Rich?)3. He misquotes Rufus King to say that "Senator Daniel Tomkins fled the field . . . of battle" when the vote on slavery in Missouri was taken. Daniel Tompkins (not Tomkins) was Vice President of the United States, not Senator; King accused his brother, Caleb Tompkins (a Congressman from New York) of having "fled the question" (not the field of battle) by abstaining on the vote to admit Missouri without restrictions.4. He says no "leading Jeffersonians" in New York, as opposed to Federalists, "cared much about slavery," but Daniel Tompkins (as governor of the state) had been a leading member of the state's Manumission Society (Hamilton's main anti-slavery credential) and in fact sponsored New York's final emancipation law in emancipation act in 1817 and then signed it into law. Finkelman acknowledges grudgingly that Clinton Republicans "at least openly opposed the extension of slavery in the West," but it was in fact another New York Republican--James Tallmadge--who introduced the amendment to restrict slavery in Missouri that began the crisis, and a third--John Taylor--who introduced it again in the next Congress, after Tallmadge had left the House. Tallmadge's name, by the way, is never mentioned in Finkelman's book, although the "Tallmadge Amendment" made it famous in the anti-slavery cause.

These may seem like picky objections, but they cast doubt on the credibility of an author who purports to be a scholar of the period--and someone should at least have caught the trio of embarrassing lapses involving Daniel Tompkins--merely a Vice president, it is true, but in fact the only one to serve out two full terms in all of the nineteenth century.